search_tracks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the return shape, the distinction between returned and total counts, the limit cap, and the rejection of unsafe filters — all useful non-obvious behaviors.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the action, gives a concrete filter example, then explains result semantics and a safety behavior. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is adequate for a basic invocation using only the required filter parameter, and the output schema covers return structure. But the optional parameters remain under-specified, and there is no guidance about edge cases such as invalid fields or the exact shape of unsafe filters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the filter format and limit behavior well, but leaves sort, fields, and source entirely to name inference, which is a significant gap for a tool with five parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a clear action and resource: 'Search the library' with a filter mechanism over fields. It is specific enough to distinguish from tools like get_track, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling list/query tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied: call this when you need tracks matching arbitrary field conditions. However, the description does not state when to prefer another tool, such as list_untagged_tracks or get_track, and offers no exclusionary guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.